Method of Responding to the Foundations of Jurisprudential Doubts Using the Foundation study Approach

Jurisprudential doubts refer to those that challenge the reliability of Islamic jurisprudential teachings by attempting to portray them as not sound or well-founded. An examination of these doubts reveals that their content, beyond critiquing minor jurisprudential details, is supported by broader cognitive frameworks. These frameworks constitute the cognitive foundations of doubt, upon which a family of related doubts is based. This study employs an exploratory-descriptive method and utilizes documentary sources to identify the foundational elements that give rise to jurisprudential doubts. To achieve this objective, the research first defines jurisprudential doubt and the foundation study approach to responding to such doubts. It then categorizes the most frequent cognitive foundations of jurisprudential doubts into four groups: inconsistency with human rights, opposition to moral judgments, conflict with rational judgments, and inefficiency in the contemporary era. The perceived conflict between jurisprudential rulings and human rights is further subdivided into themes concerning human dignity, the principle of human freedom, and the principle of justice. The key finding of this research is that by understanding the cognitive foundations of these doubts, many jurisprudential doubts can be assessed within one of the specified categories, thereby enabling a comprehensive response to similar doubts.